455 karma · joined August 22, 2011
Kodable
On the other hand, it kind of worries me, because a lot of the most successful founders don't have anywhere near the level of accomplishment that is listed on this application. I think pg mentioned this at the last Demo Day. More and more "qualified" people are applying to YC now. I don't say this to diminish the quality of the application, I just wonder if these types of applicants are pushing out the young hackers that might have made it to an interview a few years ago.
Being "progressive" is great, but we live in the real world and if you refuse to do things to lower prices in the name of culture, prices will keep going up. Ironically, this will also hurt, if not destroy, the "culture" that they're trying to protect in the first place.
One concrete consequence is that Y Combinator funding lets you sell early, if you want to. It can sometimes make sense to sell yourself when you're small for a few million, rather than take more funding and roll the dice again. Google likes to do early-stage acquisitions, and we expect them to become increasingly common as other companies learn what Google has.
If you take a large amount of money from an investor, you usually give up this option. But we realize (having been there) that an early offer from an acquirer can be very tempting for a group of young hackers. So if you want to sell early, that's ok. We'd make more if you went for an IPO, but we're not going to force anyone to do anything they don't want to.
The biggest issue for solo founders is the mental toll of a startup. Startups are hard, and you need that second mind to help you pull through the hardest parts. When you have two people, getting through the soul-crushing lows is a little easier because odds are both of you won't be miserable at the same time.
Its curious, however, that Zuck is actually number 4 (www.facebook.com/4), numbers 1-3 are missing. I wonder why?
A significant amount of homeless people are homeless, sadly, because of mental conditions. I'm not saying that most homeless people are going to attack you in the street, but things like schizophrenia and bi-polar disorder can be extremely dangerous if they go untreated.
The last time I was there, I realized why most of the protests for economic reform and "the 1%" are so strong in the Bay Area: because it is so blatantly thrown in people's faces! The streets are filled with Porsches and Teslas driving by the many homeless people in SF everyday. Rent is absolutely absurd. Most big cities have this problem, but its especially pronounced in SF (probably moreso than everywhere but NYC).
I think the thing that probably makes it worse in SF is, as mentioned in the article, many people don't work in SF. I don't know of many companies in Chicago, NYC, or Dallas providing free transportation to their headquarters in the suburbs, people that live in those places usually work in there too.
I'm not sure what can be done about this; Google isn't moving their headquarters to SF (nor should they). At some point this issue is going to boil over and something will have to change.
As far as YC goes, most HAVE traction by Demo Day, significantly so. It's not like these companies have an early beta with 20 users and are raising on a name. Most of the time they achieve early traction from a combination of YCs guidance and the fact that if you get into YC, you're typically a pretty good entrepreneur and have a higher likelihood to succeed.
One concrete consequence is that Y Combinator funding lets you sell early, if you want to. It can sometimes make sense to sell yourself when you're small for a few million, rather than take more funding and roll the dice again. Google likes to do early-stage acquisitions, and we expect them to become increasingly common as other companies learn what Google has.
If you take a large amount of money from an investor, you usually give up this option. But we realize (having been there) that an early offer from an acquirer can be very tempting for a group of young hackers. So if you want to sell early, that's ok. We'd make more if you went for an IPO, but we're not going to force anyone to do anything they don't want to.
I think YC prefers big successes but doesn't try to pressure everyone to be the next Dropbox or AirBnB
Taxes are usually done after the fact. I.e you get a 1099-MISC from each person who has paid you, and you are liable for that.
Speaking of payment, learn to be a squeaky wheel about it straight off the bat. Freelancing is notoriously inconsistent, expect 60 day swings between receiving payment. DONT BILL BY THE HOUR. There's plenty of reasons why online.
Lifestyle-wise, figure out a way to be productive. You have to enforce accountability in yourself, you don't have a boss or a team counting on you. It doesn't matter when you work, you don't need to show up 9-5, you just have to get your shit done.
For what its worth the "common" people (i.e. not the ones that write blogs or go on Hacker News) seem to generally like iOS 7, and that has always been Apple's primary market anyway.
I don't like Barbie, but I'm not a girl. Same thing.
The effectiveness of DRM is a totally different subject, but in this situation they chose their bottom line (DRM) over the desires of their customers, taking a gamble that the losses in sales from pissed off people would be less than the gains from decreased piracy.
Maybe Apple will implement something similar to Steam, where this is still possible.
If they did have stock options, did they immediately vest upon termination or did they lose them?